You are here: / Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)
, , ,

THE QUESTIONNAIRES FILLED OUT BY APPLICANTS FOR CITY JUDICIAL POSITIONS WERE PROTECTED FROM THE FOIL REQUEST BY THE PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION; AN APPELLATE COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER AN UNPRESERVED ISSUE IN AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined judicial questionnaires filled out by applicants for city judicial positions were protected from the FOIL request by the personal privacy exemption. The First Department noted that it did not have the authority in an article 78 proceeding to consider an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice:

… [T]he City properly applied the personal privacy exemption (Public Officer’s Law § 89[2][a]) to deny petitioner’s FOIL request in its entirety, as the City sustained its burden of establishing that disclosure of the records sought in this case — “all Uniform Judicial Questionnaires for applicants . . . under review by the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary” as of October 21, 2020 — would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” (Public Officers Law § 87[2][b] …). Disclosure of the questionnaire, which states the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in upper-case letters and boldface near the top of its first page, would undermine the assurances of confidentiality provided to candidates for judicial office … .

Moreover, disclosure would create a chilling effect, thus potentially diminishing the candor of applicants and causing others to decide against applying for judicial positions. The questionnaire contains extensive questions touching on highly personal and sensitive matters, such as personal relationships, reasons for leaving jobs, reasons for periods of unemployment, substance abuse, arrests, criminal convictions, testifying as a witness in criminal cases, and reasons for anticipated difficulty in handling the stresses involved in being a judge, as well as a catch-all question at the end of the questionnaire asking for any other information, specifically including unfavorable information, that could bear on the evaluation of the judicial candidate. In addition to the particular contents of the questionnaires, disclosure of the very fact that certain candidates submitted the questionnaires could harm those persons’ reputations by revealing that they sought to leave their jobs, or were unsuccessful in their applications for judicial positions … . Matter of Fisher v City of N.Y. Off. of the Mayor, 2023 NY Slip Op 05468, First Dept 10-31-23

Practice Point: Here the questionnaires filled out by applicants for city judicial positions were protected from the FOIL request by the personal privacy exemption.

Practice Point: In an article 78 proceeding an appellate court cannot consider an unpreserved issue in the interest of justice.

 

, ,

THE REPEAL OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-A, WHICH PROHIBITED ACCESS TO POLICE PERSONNEL RECORDS, APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; PETITIONER PREVAILED RE: THE FOIL REQUEST AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the repeal of Civil Rights Law 50-a, which prohibited access to police personnel records, applies retroactively. The court further held petitioner had prevailed re: the FOIL request and was therefore entitled to attorney’s fees:

… [F]ormer Civil Rights Law § 50-a provided, with limited exceptions, that “[a]ll personnel records [of law enforcement officers] used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion . . . shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review” … . The legislature repealed Civil Rights Law § 50-a on June 12, 2020 … , and made several related amendments to FOIL on the same date … , stating that all of this legislation including the repeal of section 50-a “shall take effect immediately” … . The “repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a . . . reflected a strong legislative policy promoting transparency of police disciplinary records and eliminated any claim of confidentiality in them … .  * * *

… [W]e hold that the repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a applies retroactively to records created prior to June 12, 2020 … . Matter of NYP Holdings, Inc. v New York City Police Dept., 2023 NY Slip Op 05193, First Dept 10-12-23

Practice Point: The repeal of Civil Rights Law 50-a, which prohibited access to police personnel records, applies retroactively.

Practice Point: Where, as here, a petitioner prevails on a FOIL request, petitioner is entitled to the award of attorney’s fees.

 

,

BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED ON THE FOIL CAUSE OF ACTION, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MUCH OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATION WAS BY PRO BONO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees and litigation costs because petitioner had substantially prevailed on its FOIL causes of action. The fact that much of the legal representation was pro bono was not a bar to recovery:

… [T]he petitioner substantially prevailed on its FOIL cause of action, and the Town had no reasonable basis for denying access to the responsive documents. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs incurred on the FOIL cause of action … . The fact that much of the petitioner’s representation was undertaken by pro bono counsel did not affect the petitioner’s entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation costs under the statute … . Matter of Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v Town of Clarkstown, 2023 NY Slip Op 03692, Second Dept 7-5-23

Practice Point: A party who “substantially prevails” on a FOIL cause action is entitled to attorney’s fees and litigation costs, even when much of the legal work was done by pro bono counsel.

 

, ,

THE NYC BOARD OF HEALTH PROPERLY REFUSED TO ADD GENEALOGISTS TO THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO CAN ACCESS DEATH CERTIFICATES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the NYC Board of Health did not exceed the scope of its powers when it amended the NYC Health Code to add family members to the list of persons who can access death certificates but refused to add genealogists:

… New York City Board of Health did not “exceed[] the scope of its delegated powers” in amending 24 RCNY 207.11 … , by adding to the existing list of family members for whom requests for death certificates would automatically be deemed “necessary or required for a proper purpose” while declining to add genealogists … . Instead, it “balance[ed] costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines” and did not create “its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance” … .  …

The stated goal of the proposal was to allow more family members access to death certificates, and the Board of Health reasonably expressed concern with family privacy issues, due to social security numbers and causes of death being listed on death certificates, when declining to add genealogists to the expanded list … .  Matter of Reclaim the Records v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2023 NY Slip Op 02395, First Dept 5-4-23

Practice Point: The NYC Board of Health did not exceed its administrative powers when it refused to add genealogists to the list of persons who can access death certificates.

 

,

THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST WITHIN FIVE DAYS IS A DENIAL; THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY PETITIONER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE DENIAL EXCUSED PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO SEEK ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW; PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Article 78 petition seeking court review of the denial of a FOIL request should not have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Here the county did not respond to the FOIL request within five days, which, under the controlling regulations, is a denial. Petitioner, after an additional 30 days, filed the Article 78 petition without pursuing an administrative appeal. The Second Department held that the county’s failure to notify petitioner of the availability of administrative review justified petitioner’s failure to seek it before going to court, even though petitioner was aware of the availability of the administrative review process:

“The statutory time to respond to a FOIL request for records is ‘within five business days of the receipt of a written request,’ and the agency should respond by ‘mak[ing] such record available to the person requesting it, deny[ing] such request in writing or furnish[ing] a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date . . . when such request will be granted or denied'” … . 21 NYCRR 1401.7(b) states, in relevant part, that “[d]enial of access shall be in writing stating the reason therefor and advising the person denied access of his or her right to appeal to the person or body designated to determine appeals, and that person or body shall be identified by name, title, business address[,] and business telephone number” … . “21 NYCRR 1401.7(c) provides that a FOIL request is deemed denied if there is no response to the request within five business days” … . “[A]ny administrative appeal of a denial [must] be undertaken within 30 days of the denial” … . A petitioner who does not “appeal[ ] the denial in writing” will generally be deemed to have “failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and, thus, [may] not resort to a judicial forum to gain relief” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improperly determined that dismissal was warranted based on the petitioner’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. Where, as here, an agency fails to “inform the person [or entity] making the FOIL request that further administrative review of the determination is available, the requirement of exhaustion is excused” … . Matter of Law Offs. of Cory H. Morris v Suffolk County, 2023 NY Slip Op 02312, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: If the agency which receives a FOIL request does not respond within five days, the request can be deemed denied. If the agency does not notify the party making the request of the availability of administrative review of the denial, failure to seek administrative review is excused, even where, as here, the petitioner was aware of the administrative review process.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF SUED THE CITY AND POLICE UNDER 42 USC 1983 ALLEGING THE CITY AND POLICE HAD AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR PRACTICE ALLOWING POLICE OFFICERS TO FILE FALSE CHARGES, TESTIFY FALSELY AND FALSIFY EVIDENCE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO RECORDS OF SIMILAR COMPLAINTS OR INVESTIGATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CPLR DISCOVERY PROVISIONS AND WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO A FOIL REQUEST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s request for certain police records should not have been denied. Plaintiff sued the city under 42 USC 1983 alleging an unconstitutional policy or practice by the police which allows officers to swear out false criminal charges, testify falsely at trial and falsify evidence without consequences. Plaintiff sought records of complaints and investigations of similar conduct by officers in a specific task force. Because plaintiff is suing the city, his requests could be brought both pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) and the CPLR discovery provisions. Supreme Court should not have restricted plaintiff’s access to records to that available under the FOIL:

Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion with respect to plaintiff’s requests seeking records of complaints and investigations of allegedly similar conduct by officers in the same task force, as those requests did not, in fact, constitute a fishing expedition … . Plaintiff limited his requests to officers assigned only during the six months before his arrest … , and his reference to lawsuits, investigations by the Internal Affairs Bureau, and complaints to the Civilian Complaint Review Board also sufficiently identified documents sought with “reasonable particularity” (CPLR 3120[2] …). Without allowing disclosure of allegations of misconduct by other officers, it is unlikely that plaintiff could demonstrate “that the municipality had a custom or practice that was both widespread and reflected a deliberate indifference to its citizens’ constitutional rights” … .

… Supreme Court should not have imposed a limitation precluding plaintiff from seeking records directly from defendants instead of under FOIL. “When a public agency is one of the litigants, . . . it has the distinct disadvantage of having to offer its adversary two routes into its records” … , and the availability of FOIL does not replace the concomitant right to disclosure under the CPLR. Badia v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 01582, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point; Here plaintiff sued the police under 42 USC 1983 alleging an unconstitutional policy to allow the police to file false charges, testify falsely and falsify evidence. Because plaintiff was suing the police, he was entitled to records of similar complaints under the CPLR discovery provisions and was not restricted to FOIL requests.

 

BOTH THE HIPAA PRIVACY RULE AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW APPLY TO THE FOIL REQUEST FOR RECORDS DOCUMENTING INJURIES SUFFERED BY ATHLETES USING THE OLYMPIC TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK; THE HIPAA DEIDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE REQUESTED RECORDS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department noted that the HIPAA deidentification procedure was applicable to the FOIL request for sports-related injuries at the Olympic facilities in the Adirondack Park. The FOIL request was made to the respondent NYS Olympic Regional Development Authority:

… [T]he health-related information contained in the reports at issue is subject to the protections of both HIPAA and Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b). Specifically, the HIPAA Privacy Rule, among other things, addresses the use and disclosure of “individually identifiable health information,” which is defined as “any information, including demographic information collected from an individual, that . . . is created or received by a health care provider, . . . relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual, the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual, and . . . identifies the individual . . . or[,] with respect to which[,] there is a reasonable basis to believe that the information can be used to identify the individual” (42 USC § 1320d [6]). Further, as relevant here, Public Officers Law § 89 (2) (b) (i) expressly provides for the protection of medical history, which refers to “information that one would reasonably expect to be included as a relevant and material part of a proper medical history” … . Upon our review, we conclude that the information provided on the subject forms falls within these protections, as it directly pertains to the relevant individual’s present health condition and would reasonably be included as part of his or her medical history. Matter of Getting the Word Out, Inc. v New York State Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 2023 NY Slip Op 01334, Third Dept 3-16-23

Practice Point: Where a FOIL request involves medical records, the HIPAA Privacy Rule applies and the HIPAA deidentification procedure should be applied to the requested records.

 

, , ,

THE REASONS FOR THE DENIAL OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AFTER PETITIONER’S SUCCESSFUL FOIL REQUEST MERELY PARROTED THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE FOR THE LAW-ENFORCEMENT AND SAFETY EXEMPTIONS WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING FACTS; THEREFORE ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was entitled to attorney’s fees associated with his ultimately successful FOIL request for the video of the incident which was the basis for the prison disciplinary proceedings. Attorney’s fees were denied on the ground that the respondent had a reasonable basis for denying the request for the video. However the respondent’s reasons for the denial merely parroted the relevant statutory language for the law-enforcement and safety exemptions, which was deemed insufficient:

In denying petitioner’s initial FOIL request and the subsequent administrative appeal, respondent merely quoted the language from the Public Officers Law. It gave no factual explanation or justification for its blanket denial to release the video footage. Although respondent provided an affirmation by its general counsel in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the affirmation once again merely quoted the statutory language and failed to explain or demonstrate how the footage was compiled for any law enforcement purposes. In a conclusory and speculative fashion, the affirmation referenced some investigations and adjudications, but failed to provide any factual details or explanation of same. Moreover, the affirmation failed to detail how the release of the video footage would affect or interfere with said investigations and adjudications. “[R]espondent[], by merely parroting the statutory language and otherwise failing to provide any adequate sort of harm risked by disclosure, ha[s] failed to meet [its] burden of proving that disclosure of the records would interfere with a pending law enforcement investigation” … .

The affirmation was equally deficient with regard to the safety exemption (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2] [f]), in that it was neither particularized nor specific and failed to articulate an explanation as to how the release of the video footage could potentially endanger or impair the lives of correction officers or their families. Matter of Prisoners’ Legal Servs. of N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2022 NY Slip Op 07277, Third Dept 12-22-22

Practice Point: In order to deny attorney’s fees after a successful FOIL request, the respondent must demonstrate a reasonable basis for the initial denial of the request. Merely parroting the statutory language for the law-enforcement and safety exemptions is not sufficient. The reasons must be fact-based.

 

THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE DISCIPLINARY RECORDS OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CATEGORICALLY DENIED PURSUANT TO THE PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION; RATHER THE RECORDS MUST BE REVIEWED AND ANY DENIALS OR REDACTIONS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the request for the disciplinary records of police officers should not have categorically denied pursuant to the personal privacy exemption. The decision encompasses several important issues not summarized here and therefore should be consulted:

… [T]he personal privacy exemption “does not . . . categorically exempt . . . documents from disclosure”, even in the case where a FOIL request concerns release of unsubstantiated allegations or complaints of professional misconduct. In order to invoke the personal privacy exemption here, respondents must review each record responsive to petitioner’s FOIL request and determine whether any portion of the specific record is exempt as an invasion of personal privacy and, to the extent that any portion of a law enforcement disciplinary record concerning an open or unsubstantiated complaint of SPD [Syracuse Police Department] officer misconduct can be disclosed without resulting in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, respondents must release the non-exempt, i.e., properly redacted, portion of the record to petitioner … .

Inasmuch as respondents withheld the requested law enforcement disciplinary records concerning open and unsubstantiated claims of SPD officer misconduct in their entirety and did not articulate any particularized and specific justification for withholding any of the records, we conclude that respondents did not meet their burden of establishing that the personal privacy exemption applies … . Respondents further failed to establish that “identifying details” in the law enforcement disciplinary records concerning open and unsubstantiated claims of SPD officer misconduct “could not be redacted so as to not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . Thus, the court erred in granting that part of respondents’ motion seeking to dismiss petitioner’s request for law enforcement disciplinary records concerning open or unsubstantiated claims of SPD officer misconduct in reliance on the personal privacy exemption under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b).  Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v City of Syracuse, 2022 NY Slip Op 06348, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Similar issues in: Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v City of Rochester, 2022 NY Slip Op 06346, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: A FOIL request for the disciplinary records of police officers cannot be categorically rejected pursuant to the personal privacy exemption. Rather the records must be reviewed and any denials an redactions explained.

 

,

HERE, IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING, THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS WERE ULTIMATELY PROVIDED AFTER AN INITIAL REFUSAL RENDERING THE ACTION MOOT; THE PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES, HOWEVER, WAS NOT PRECLUDED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the award of attorney’s fees for a FOIL request is not precluded when the underlying action is rendered moot because the requested documents were ultimately provided (after an initial refusal):

The fact that the proceeding has been rendered moot by the disclosure of the documents does not … preclude petitioner’s request for an award of fees … .The Public Officers Law permits an award of “reasonable [counsel] fees and other litigation costs” where the petitioner “has substantially prevailed” in a FOIL proceeding and “when the agency failed to respond to a request . . . within the statutory time frame” … . Under the circumstances, as petitioner included in his petition a request for fees associated with the FOIL application, the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court for a determination of an award of costs and fees pursuant to Public Officers Law § 89 (4) (c) (i). Matter of Lewis v James, 2022 NY Slip Op 04066, Third Dept 6-23-22

Practice Point: If a FOIL request, after an initial refusal to provide the requested documents, is rendered moot by the respondent’s ultimately providing the documents, an award of attorney’s fees to the petitioner is not precluded.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy